The exact date that Rubio’s parents left Cuba for the United States is a detail that is of little importance to most people outside of South Florida’s Cuban-American community, most of whom came over to flee the Castro regime. Were Rubio’s parents really exiles? The answer is a definite maybe.

First of all, it’s important to set the context. Prior to 1959 there had been a circular migration pattern between Cuba and Florida dating back centuries, as both were Spanish colonies. That continued even after Florida became a state and on into the 1950s when the doors to both countries were open to each other’s citizens. Cubans often came to the United States and then returned to Cuba, as my maternal grandfather did once.

It’s clear that Rubio’s parents did not leave Cuba in reaction to Fidel Castro’s rule, but there is reason to give people like the elder Rubios the benefit of the doubt on claiming to be exiles. In 1956 when the Rubios left Cuba, the armed insurrection led by Fidel Castro and his bloodthirsty Argentinean sidekick Ernesto Che Guevara was already well underway. There was a lot of political and social turmoil in the country. Whether the insurrection contributed to their decision to leave or not only they would know. But even if it played no part in their thought process, the fact remains that Castro came to power and changed Cuba radically. So much so that Rubio states that his parents could never go back. In a press release issued by his office, Rubio claims that his mother did return to Cuba in 1961 with the intention of having her husband join her to stay permanently. Upon realizing the direction the country was headed in, she decided to leave for the United States again.

Rubio’s parents did not become U.S. citizens until 1975. It’s quite possible that when they left Cuba in 1956 they had no intention of staying in the United States forever, and we can’t assume that they did. But while they were here, a revolution occurred in their home country that was so radical and catastrophic that — like more than a million of their countrymen who have since fled — they believed they could never go back while the illegitimate Castro regime remained in power.

Does that make them exiles? It’s good enough for me.

The “Rubio embellishes … ” headline is a twofer for the liberal media. Not only do they get to take a shot at a rising star in the conservative ranks, but also at a Cuban-American. As escapees from the socialist model that leftists revere, Cuban-Americans reject anything that resembles that ideology. This puts Cubans in a very small minority of reliably Republican Hispanics.

It should be noted that the Washington Post has expressed its disdain for Cuban-Americans before. In 2007 they published an outrageous cartoon by Pat Oliphant depicting a boatload of Cubans being shoved off by Uncle Sam, because the cartoonist viewed their opposition to then candidate Obama’s hopey-changey agenda as “interfering with the ’08 election.” Also, Manuel Roig-Franzia — the reporter who penned Thursday’s Rubio hit piece — has written several rosy portrayals of the Castro regime in Cuba and its alleged reforms. Roig-Franzia recently sold a book on Rubio to Simon & Schuster. I’m betting it won’t be flattering.

98 Comments, 35 Threads

1.
arhooley

Remember when Hillary claimed to be named after Sir Edmund, fearless conqueror of Mount Everest, even though she was born several years before his feat? And what was her excuse for that, eh, lie? “That’s what my mother told me.”

Bobby would be great…says “no”….but if conservatives don’t do something..obama will walk back into office. Perry will probably be the repub candidate..and obama will win, unless Perry takes some big steps, opens up, learns to talk in public. So many people like “talk”…and obama is a a talker..they do not realize he’s not a doer..but they still love him. disgusting BPOS. he needs to be called out,politically, in public without a teleprompter..or earpiece or..whatever..make this man answer for his destruction!!! maybe we’ll find him hiding in a drain pipe…
….AND ALL THIS SMOKE SCREEN ABOUT SOLDIERS, LIBYA ETC…HOW ABOUT those $$$$,the electric car and Finland??? Not hearing too much about that one!!

Birthers are now saying Rubio is not a natural citizen, and he embellished his family history…
Just take the words out of the bag….throw them at the citizenry and see if they stick..if not..go get some more words..try again..and again..and..

I know the list goes on and on. I live in a hippie liberal town and you should have seen the complete uproar when Bush went to war with Iraq. But you couldn’t hear a peep out of any of them when B.O. went to war with Libya without any kind of congressional approval…..Yes I know it was NATO not the U.S. that was B.O.s excuse. Now B.O. is talking about Uganda but no complaints. Even though the only reason he wants to go to war with Uganda is to protect Soros’ oil interest there.

Yes I saw Mr. Jindal on the tube last night. Was impressed to know that unemployment in Louisana has been declining steadily since Katrina and is now lower than the national average, by about two % if I recall correctly. And what he has done with education in LA is remarkable.

Like Rubio and Obama, Jindal is NOT a natural born citizen. He is only a native born citizen. He was born on U.S. soil, but because his parents were not then U.S. citizens he is not a natural born citizen. Ignoring the U.S. Constitution for Obama does not mean we should repeat the mistake for Rubio or Jindal – even though I would certainly prefer Rubio or Jindal over Biden.

Remember, highly functioning governors, senators and representatives are equally important to a responsive, responsible federal government. I would not be too quick to shift people over to running for the executive office when they are making impressive strides on behalf of their own states.

Also, we should not ignore the Constitution when it’s convenient as our “constitutional law expert” president did when he ran. I do believe the Constitution requires BOTH parents be legal citizens for their offspring to be eligible candidates in order to prevent divided loyalies. Think about it…do you want a person whose parents are refugees but citizens of Somalia or Russia or Saudi Arabia to run for president? We need to remember history and not be so generous handing off power. Let these citizens run for local, municipal or state offices while encouraging THEIR children to consider higher office. Rubio and Jindahl have stellar careers ahead of them, but not as President or VP. Perhaps in cabinet posts.

It is interesting that the Democrats are spending so much time bashing somebody who isn’t even running for anything. I think they should save their time and money for the real candidate the Republicans nominate because they’re going to need it. Right now, a can of soup could beat Obama in an election. By November of 2012, I’m thinking the Republicans won’t even need the soup anymore, just the can.

The marxists are probably doing it to prevent him from being the veep candidate.

Rubio’s statements that he won’t accept the veep slot will mean nothing when every single Republican of any stature whatsoever calls to beg him to accept the slot. He would be the most valuable veep candidate of all time, by far.

I just hope the presidential candidate really really vets him before the offer is made…and comes up with a counter attack strategy rather than letting him twist in the wind like Sarah Palin.

I’m sure he will be vetted long before then, if this continues. All they have to do is hint, and the Press will go sniffing. So far, they got nuttin’.

Rubio was recently asked about being specifically asked by the nominee, and he had to admit, that in all fairness and respect, he would have to consider it. He’s right.

Cain/Rubio would be a powerful ticket, not just for the election, but it would take away yet another tool from the rabble-rousing Left. Raaacist is already a joke, but it would become just ridiculous with that ticket. Anyone throwing that out would just completely beclown himself. It would open the floodgates to minorities joining the Right.

They’d damned well better govern well, though. The minority status is the decoration on the icing, not the cake.

As much as I dislike Romney, I suspect the GOP ticket will be Romney/Cain. Romney, because the GOP establishment wants him, and Cain, because Romney will have to find a way to attract conservatives.

Obama’s political hit man, David Axelrod, and the media, will then dig up every story they can find about Mormons that cast a bad light on the religion. Somewhere out there is the ex-wife of a multiple-wived Mormon who was abused with a buggy whip, and you can bet that Diane Sawyer will be first in line to bring the nation an “exclusive” interview. Send me a nickel for every time the word “cult” is uttered and I’ll be a wealthy man.

But it might not play out as negatively as you think. It would give Romney the opportunity to hammer on Obama’s “associations” and “religion” as well. Sure, everybody who reads PJM knows all about that stuff, but fully 50% of the country knows nothing about it.

Romney doesn’t strike me as a guy who will play by Marquis of Queensbury rules when the other guys are kicking people in the balls.

It feels like an anticipative or prophylactic strategy:
– Look at the opposition with a multi-election perspective;
– Identify up-and-comers who could be threats in out-years;
– Prepare weapons to be used against them, should they become any more threatening.

Marco Rubio is an impressive guy, and might well have a future in the White House. If I were a Democrat strategist, I would put some money and effort into priming guns to be fired at him in 2016 or 2020, if not when he stands for re-election to the Senate.

The Left tends to look at these things with a deeper perspective than we, friends. It’s worth our while to study their moves.

You are dead on…and anything they find now will be chestnuts to hold on to and or manipulate until the time is right. When the big ‘reveal’ comes, they have already set the target up in a trap. For example, after discovering W’s DUI, they keep a lid on it, while getting media operatives to get W on record speaking out about the dangers of alcohol. Only then, on the eve of the election, they plaster the ‘discovery’ all over the media making him look like a hypocrite. Although it didn’t quite work in W’s case because many people knew about (or had prior reason to expect) the incident before hand.
What Rubio (and any other high official) ought to do is air any dirty laundry far before making a major move so as to properly innoculate the public before the intentional infection.
This very Democratic strategy was used to sink the campaign of Meg Whitman, and has been tried dozens of times in recent years. They play chess, while the Republicans play checkers…..

Yes, the Left has always shown more strategic vision than the Right, from Gramsci forward. We make the mistake of concentrating too greatly on their policy directions, when it’s their innovations in political strategy and tactics from which we could learn the most.

The core issues are that conservatives are citizens with jobs, have had too much faith in the constitution, and have assumed that the country’s traditional values will prevail simply because they have been successful so far.

Marxists are 24x7x365 professionals who couldn’t care less about the constitution or any other rulebook. The only reason they haven’t been more violent in the US is because they have calculated that violence here is counterproductive. At the point where they think violence will be able to push them over the top, they will become more vicious than you can imagine.

How do I know? Because that’s the way they have operated hundreds of times (tens of thousands of times if you accept my premis that marxists are simply modern-day wannabe tyrant/thugs who have merely adopted Marx as bait in their traps). In most cases, violence is their first tactic because it is the quickest.

Which is precisely why a fearless, true conservative must be nominated. Rubio will be asked and he will accept. Two reasons: He is a patriot and would become the president in 2020. A 16 year conservative run. Imagine how America will prosper!

None of this “dirt digging” is relevant since Obama was given a complete pass in the last election. The media has no standing now to chase one side alone. They are avowed partisans and as such represent no semblance of news. If more people articulate that directly to these fools, it might affect their pocketbooks.

I disagree with your premise – there are just too many sheeple that still get their news from alphabet news. Until that changes – or the MSM changes (not likely) its an uphill battle for conservative candidates. We have seen chinks in the force field surrounding Obama of late – CBS is actually doing some in-depth reporting on the Fast and Furious antics of Holder and Co. ABC/NBC are silent for the most part – waiting no doubt to see if the story grows legs. Don’t know how long those legs need to be – seems to be on stilts as it stands now.

All of the dirt digging is relevant from here on out
and even as much as we can still bring to bare on the
current slug in the White House. Vetting is what it’s
all about and no one has been through it more than
Sarah and that is a good thing for the country.

This is an example of long-term planning. Rubio is going to be a national force one way or another and the Dem hit machine probably calculates that they may as well go after him now rather than later. Even if he is not on the ticket his presence as campaigner and speaker will be a strong asset to the GOP nominee. Also it IS rathe amusing that the antiquated MSM is willing to embrace every type of “political exile” except the Cubans. Cuban-Americans stand as living reproof to the quasi-romantic embrace our national elites have long extended to Castro. They hate to see facts mucking up the narrative and guys like Rubio do just that,

I don’t know why anyone anymore even bothers to investigate the status of the parents of a “naturally born U.S. citizen.” If and only if they were registered by the Department of State as fully accredited diplomats could their child possibly not have acquired U.S. citizenship at birth. As to his Cuban exile bona fides, I don’t give a tinker’s damn. When an alien leaves his home and comes to the U.S., and subsequently can’t return to his home country for fear of persecution,that person has just become an exile.

Rubio’s parents were not US citizens when Rubio was born in Florida. They were foreigners on US soil. His parents did not become citizens until he was 5 years old. That woulld make Rubio what some have called an “anchor baby”.

Our law states that “anchor babies” are U.S. citizens — and so Rubio and Jindal are U.S. citizens. I don’t have a problem with babies born to people who are here legally; I have a problem with babies born to people that sneak over the border, drop their baby and then demand welfare.

They are native born citizens but they are not natural born citizens. The terms are not equivalent – which is why there are different terms.

Just as all trees are plants but not all plants are trees, all natural born citizens are citizens but not all citizens are natural born citizen.

Native born means nothing more than born on U.S. soil. Natural born means born on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizen parents. The wording of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S Constitution makes no sense if natural born means the same thing as native born, and the “grandfather clause” of the requirement would serve no purpose.

I didn’t know so many constitutional experts there were trolling the comments sections of web sites. If Rubio is not a natural born citizen of the United States then what country is a natural born citizen of? Cuba? A country he’s never been to much less held a passport from? Really dude, step away from the crack pipe.

He is a native-born citizen, not a natural-born citizen. The phrase natural born citizen, familiar to lawyers in 1776, refers to someone natively born of two citizen parents. It appears in the Constitution only with regard to persons running for the office of President. By Constitutional law, only a natural-born citizen (i.e., one born on American soil to two American parents), OR citizens living here before or at the time the amendment was enacted (who may not have been natural-born citizens), qualify or qualified for office of President. This law was enacted to ensure that no president, after passage of the amendment, had divided loyalties between the U.S. and some other country.

Rubio is a native-born citizen. His parents are naturalized citizens. He is not a natural-born citizen, and cannot legally become president.

If you were born here and your parents were citizens at the time, YOU are a NATURAL-born citizen. If your parents were not citizens at the time, YOU are not a natural-born citizen, but a NATIVE-born citizen. Got it???

This is the one argument against Obama that cannot be glossed over by screaming “birther!” No matter WHERE he was born, his father was not a U.S. citizen, and he does not meet the constitutional requirements for a president. But, for some reason our courts are refusing to hear arguments about this. If the argument were invalid, they would simply declare him a “natural born citizen,” and put an end to it. But, no court has done so. Instead, they refuse to say anything. Why? Who is pulling the strings here, and for what purpose? Why have the CIA and FBI been up to? Surely the Powers That Be cannot justify this blatant violation of the Constitution on the grounds that (a) we needed or need a black president or (b) ruling him invalid might cause race riots. The ends do not justify the means. By allowing this travesty, they’ve opened up a can of worms that may very well destroy the Republic.

It used to be said in the United States that no man was above the law. Now, we’ve discovered that one man absolutely is.

Rubio nor Jindal are “natural born Citizens”. There were at least 7 attempts by the US Congress to change the Constitutional clause that a person running for POTUS or VP must be a “natural born Citizen” since 2003. All efforts failed and the clause still remains. Both these men are not eligible for the very same reason Barack Hussein Obama was not eligible. That is what all the hoop la is about with Obama’s BC. Oh, by the way, the Washington Post investigated the SS#s of Marco Rubio’s parents. You would think that they would be more interested in the fact that Obama’s SS# was recently FLAGGED by E-Verify as being FRAUDULENT. This is a real scandal, there is a whole bunch of things wrong with Obama’s SS#. I hope Marco Rubio retaliates against the Washington Post by investigating here favorite son Hopeychange.

The terms “citizen,” “native born,” and “natural born” are not equivalent. Native born means nothing more than born on U.S. soil. Natural born means born on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizen parents. The wording of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S Constitution makes no sense if natural born means the same thing as native born, and the “grandfather clause” of the requirement would serve no purpose. (Those who point to the 14th Amendment should be reminded that is has nothing to do with the term natural born citizen and does not even mention it.)

Absent a Supreme Court ruling on the issue (which Obama has been fighting for more than two years), it must be resolved by historical documents:

On the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives in 1862, Congressman John Bingham—the “father of the 14th Amendment”—stated, “All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians.” In 1866 Bingham stated, “Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” Bingham’s definition was never disputed by other Congressmen. (Obama supporters—including attorneys filing briefs with the U.S. Supreme Court—have omitted the words “of parents” when quoting Bingham’s statement, in a shameful and intentional effort to mislead.)

In Minor v. Happersett (1875) Chief Justice of the Supreme Court C. J. Waite wrote, “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.”

If Rubio is chosen as the GOP’s vice presidential candidate lawsuits will fly. Count on it.

I checked the Constitution and the term “natural born citizen” is not defined therein. Furthermore, there is no precedent that explicitly excludes those who were born in the United States to noncitizen parents from being considered natural born citizens. Quite simply, Obama is causing a stir because people can’t agree on what the law means, and nobody with any authority wants to touch this to give us a conclusive ruling.

@myth buster – Amazing, I seem to run across Constitution thrashers all over the place!

Precedent was set for Natural Born Citizen by Supreme Court in 1874

Minor v. Happersett (1874) 21 Wall. 162, 166-168

The requirement that seems to have all sorts of national ‘scholars’ all miffed up, is:

Both parents US Citizens

Now, as much as I like Rubio, he is fit for any office but vice president or president.

And I find it rather appalling some of my favorite radio talking heads do their best to pump Rubio for a run for president. They’ve been informed, they know. But I don’t understand their intent.

Our Constitution is NOT there to circumvent or disregard, it is there for us to understand and live by.

But the more interesting part, if Obama really felt Rubio would be a legit threat, would our Usurper-In-Chief (or his surrogates) have the audacity to go after him over a citizenship issue? Now this one I’d be very interested in watching.

The constitution merely states that the President must be a “natural born citizen”. There have been numerous attempt to introduce an amendment to clearly add the definition but they have all been stalled. To me, there are two types of citizenship in this country: “natural” and it’s complement “naturalized”. Loosely stated, that would be citizenship by birth or citizenship by the naturalization process. Now since Rubio is a citizen by birth per the 14th Amendment and not a naturalized citizen, he must be a natural born citizen.

But his parents were not citizens at the time of his birth (in the US). This does NOT meet constitutional muster – not for president and not for vice president. There is also precedent in the supreme court. They have ruled on this many times.

Andrew Jackson was Born 20 years before the Constitution of the United States was Written. He was born in 1767 and the Constitution was written in 1787 and then ratified in 1788. Article 2 section 1 clearly states that all are citizens at the time of this document being written. That is what qualifies Andrew Jackson for being President of the United States. Now there were 6 other Presidents with Foreign Born Parents – Lets look at them – and why did they qualify?

Andrew Jackson born in 1767 to two foreign born parents but qualified at the time the Constitution was adopted.

James Buchanan – 14th President of the United States – He was born on April 23, 1791 in Mercersburg, Pennsylvania. He just missed out on the grandfather clause as the Constitution was adopted on September 17, 1787, by the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia. His mother Elizabeth Speer was born in Pennsylvani. His father James Buchanan emigrated to the United States from Ireland in 1783. It was an interesting year for the United States as the Treaty of 1783 was signed between the US and Great Britain. Colonists chose to be United States citizens and by virtue of the Treaty, Great Britain recognized those former subjects as United States citizens.

Before the Constitution, United States citizenship was conferred on citizens by the States. When the Constitution was ratified, each citizen of a state became a citizen of the United States. No formal naturalization was needed.

On June 21, 1788 the Constitution was ratified. The Buchanan’s were citizens of Pennsylvania and therefore James Sr. was a citizen of the United States. When James Jr. was born in Pennsylvania he was therefore a natural born citizen, born on United States soil to two US citizen parents.

ANDREW JOHNSON

Johnson, our 17th President, was born in Raleigh, North Carolina on December 29, 1808.

Jacob Johnson was born circa 1778. Some sources indicate that he was born in Newcastle, England and sailed to America around 1795, but other sources indicate that he was born in Raleigh, North Carolina, and that it was his grandfather (and possible namesake) who sailed to North America from England. Historian Rev. Nash A. Odom writes that “In the year 1760, Peter Johnson, migrated from Kintyre, Scotland to North Carolina with his large family and settled in Cumberland County. The preaching instinct broke out again and a number of the Johnsons became ministers. One was the father of Jacob Johnson, who moved to Raleigh, North Carolina and was the father of President Andrew Johnson.” Author Billy Kennedy writes that Jacob’s father, named Andrew, a Presbyterian, came to North Carolina about 1750 from Mounthill, Ireland.

Andrew Jackson was Born 20 years before the Constitution of the United States was Written. He was born in 1767 and the Constitution was written in 1787 and then ratified in 1788. Article 2 section 1 clearly states that all are citizens at the time of this document being written. That is what qualifies Andrew Jackson for being President of the United States. Now there were 6 other Presidents with Foreign Born Parents – Lets look at them – and why did they qualify?

Andrew Jackson born in 1767 to two foreign born parents but qualified at the time the Constitution was adopted.

James Buchanan – 14th President of the United States – He was born on April 23, 1791 in Mercersburg, Pennsylvania. He just missed out on the grandfather clause as the Constitution was adopted on September 17, 1787, by the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia. His mother Elizabeth Speer was born in Pennsylvani. His father James Buchanan emigrated to the United States from Ireland in 1783. It was an interesting year for the United States as the Treaty of 1783 was signed between the US and Great Britain. Colonists chose to be United States citizens and by virtue of the Treaty, Great Britain recognized those former subjects as United States citizens.

Before the Constitution, United States citizenship was conferred on citizens by the States. When the Constitution was ratified, each citizen of a state became a citizen of the United States. No formal naturalization was needed.

On June 21, 1788 the Constitution was ratified. The Buchanan’s were citizens of Pennsylvania and therefore James Sr. was a citizen of the United States. When James Jr. was born in Pennsylvania he was therefore a natural born citizen, born on United States soil to two US citizen parents.

ANDREW JOHNSON

Johnson, our 17th President, was born in Raleigh, North Carolina on December 29, 1808.

Jacob Johnson was born 1778. Some sources indicate that he was born in Newcastle, England and sailed to America around 1795, but other sources indicate that he was born in Raleigh, North Carolina, and that it was his grandfather (and possible namesake) who sailed to North America from England. Historian Rev. Nash A. Odom writes that “In the year 1760, Peter Johnson, migrated from Kintyre, Scotland to North Carolina with his large family and settled in Cumberland County. The preaching instinct broke out again and a number of the Johnsons became ministers. One was the father of Jacob Johnson, who moved to Raleigh, North Carolina and was the father of President Andrew Johnson.” Author Billy Kennedy writes that Jacob’s father, named Andrew, a Presbyterian, came to North Carolina about 1750 from Mounthill, Ireland.

The weight of authority is that Jacob was born in the US. But even if the other sources were correct, he would have been in the US for 13 years before Andrew was born. The Naturalization act of 1795 called for a five year residence before Naturalization. The Act was modified in 1798 to a 14 year requirement, but then the Naturalization act of 1802 it was put back to five years.

Jacob Johnson also served as a militia Captain of Muster Division 20 and was the city constable. I can find no allegations that Jacob wasn’t a citizen when Andrew was born. (Jacob Johnson died from complications caused by his heroic saving of a friend’s life.)

Andrew Johnson’s mother was born in North Carolina in 1782.

So, Andrew Johnson – born in North Carolina to two US citizen parents, hence – natural born citizen.

WOODROW WILSON

Born December 28, 1856 – the 28th President, born in Staunton, Virginia.

Wilson’s mother was from Carlisle, England. His father was a US citizen from Ohio. Wilson’s mother gained US citizenship when she married his father according to a congressional Act of February 1855, which stated,

“any woman who might lawfully be naturalized under existing laws, married, or shall be married to a citizen of the United States, shall be deemed and taken to be a citizen.” [Act of February 10, 1855, 10 Stat. 604, section 2]

This was called derivative citizenship. This act was enacted in 1855. Woodrow Wilson was born in December 1856. He was born in the US, both parents were US citizens – natural born citizen.

HERBERT HOOVER

Hoover was born in Iowa, 1874. He was the 31st President. His father Jesse was from Ohio, a US citizen. His mother Hulda Minthorn was from Ontario, Canada. They were married in 1870. According to the 1855 act, which was in effect until 1922, Hoover’s mother became a US citizen automatically when she married Jesse.

So, Hoover was born in the US, both parents were citizens – natural born citizen.

CHESTER ARTHUR … There are many questions that have gone unanswered about Arthur, some are saying he lied about his age, he had to show his birth Certificate to prove he was born in Vermont, and some say he lied about his parents and being a duel citizen. Many things have come to light about Arthur – since 2008.

Chester Arthur (1881-1885), was born on October 5, 1829 in Fairfield, Vermont. His father, William Arthur, when eighteen years of age, emigrated from Co. Antrim, Ireland. His father did not become a naturalized U.S. citizen until 14 years after Chester Arthur’s birth. Chester Arthur’s mother, Malvina Stone, was born April 29, 1802 in Berkshire, Franklin, Vermont. Hence, Chester Arthur was born to a father who was not a U.S. citizen at the time of his birth. Because the citizenship of the wife merged into that of the husband, this made Arthur born to an alien mother and father. He was therefore born with dual citizenship of the United Kingdom and the United States. It is believed that Chester Arthur lied numerous times about his past to hide the fact that when he was born his father was not a U.S. citizen and to therefore obfuscate his ineligibility to hold Vice-Presidential and Presidential office. What is most telling is that Chester Arthur also burned all personal records just prior to his death. Chester Arthur was challenged during his Vice Presidential bid on the ground that he was not born in the United States. No one challenged Chester Arthur on the ground that even if he were born in the United States, he was still not an Article II “natural born Citizen” because of his father’s foreign citizenship at the time of his birth which also made his mother an alien. Hence, the Chester Arthur example is not and cannot be treated as any precedent since the nation was not aware of the truth about his father’s and mother’s non-U.S. citizenship status at the time of his birth. Gregory J. Dehler, Chester Alan Arthur: The Life of a Gilded Age Politician and President, Published by Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2006, ISBN 1600210791, 9781600210792, 192 pages; naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2008/12/06/urgent-historical-breakthrough-proof-chester-arthur-concealed-he-was-a-british-subject-at-birth/. Also see the research done by attorney Leo Donofrio on the Chester Arthur issue which can be found at naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2008/12/06/urgent-historical-breakthrough-proof-chester-arthur-concealed-he-was-a-british-subject-at-birth.

The weight of authority is that Jacob was born in the US. But even if the other sources were correct, he would have been in the US for 13 years before Andrew was born. The Naturalization act of 1795 called for a five year residence before Naturalization. The Act was modified in 1798 to a 14 year requirement, but then the Naturalization act of 1802 it was put back to five years.

Jacob Johnson also served as a militia Captain of Muster Division 20 and was the city constable. I can find no allegations that Jacob wasn’t a citizen when Andrew was born. (Jacob Johnson died from complications caused by his heroic saving of a friend’s life.)

Andrew Johnson’s mother was born in North Carolina in 1782.

So, Andrew Johnson – born in North Carolina to two US citizen parents, hence – natural born citizen.

WOODROW WILSON

Born December 28, 1856 – the 28th President, born in Staunton, Virginia.

Wilson’s mother was from Carlisle, England. His father was a US citizen from Ohio. Wilson’s mother gained US citizenship when she married his father according to a congressional Act of February 1855, which stated,

“any woman who might lawfully be naturalized under existing laws, married, or shall be married to a citizen of the United States, shall be deemed and taken to be a citizen.” [Act of February 10, 1855, 10 Stat. 604, section 2]

This was called derivative citizenship. This act was enacted in 1855. Woodrow Wilson was born in December 1856. He was born in the US, both parents were US citizens – natural born citizen.

HERBERT HOOVER

Hoover was born in Iowa, 1874. He was the 31st President. His father Jesse was from Ohio, a US citizen. His mother Hulda Minthorn was from Ontario, Canada. They were married in 1870. According to the 1855 act, which was in effect until 1922, Hoover’s mother became a US citizen automatically when she married Jesse.

So, Hoover was born in the US, both parents were citizens – natural born citizen.

CHESTER ARTHUR … There are many questions that have gone unanswered about Arthur, some are saying he lied about his age, he had to show his birth Certificate to prove he was born in Vermont, and some say he lied about his parents and being a duel citizen. Many things have come to light about Arthur – since 2008.

Chester Arthur (1881-1885), was born on October 5, 1829 in Fairfield, Vermont. His father, William Arthur, when eighteen years of age, emigrated from Co. Antrim, Ireland. His father did not become a naturalized U.S. citizen until 14 years after Chester Arthur’s birth. Chester Arthur’s mother, Malvina Stone, was born April 29, 1802 in Berkshire, Franklin, Vermont. Hence, Chester Arthur was born to a father who was not a U.S. citizen at the time of his birth. Because the citizenship of the wife merged into that of the husband, this made Arthur born to an alien mother and father. He was therefore born with dual citizenship of the United Kingdom and the United States. It is believed that Chester Arthur lied numerous times about his past to hide the fact that when he was born his father was not a U.S. citizen and to therefore obfuscate his ineligibility to hold Vice-Presidential and Presidential office. What is most telling is that Chester Arthur also burned all personal records just prior to his death. Chester Arthur was challenged during his Vice Presidential bid on the ground that he was not born in the United States. No one challenged Chester Arthur on the ground that even if he were born in the United States, he was still not an Article II “natural born Citizen” because of his father’s foreign citizenship at the time of his birth which also made his mother an alien. Hence, the Chester Arthur example is not and cannot be treated as any precedent since the nation was not aware of the truth about his father’s and mother’s non-U.S. citizenship status at the time of his birth. Gregory J. Dehler, Chester Alan Arthur: The Life of a Gilded Age Politician and President, Published by Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2006, ISBN 1600210791, 9781600210792, 192 pages; naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2008/12/06/urgent-historical-breakthrough-proof-chester-arthur-concealed-he-was-a-british-subject-at-birth/. Also see the research done by attorney Leo Donofrio on the Chester Arthur issue which can be found at naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2008/12/06/urgent-historical-breakthrough-proof-chester-arthur-concealed-he-was-a-british-subject-at-birth.

The founders when drafting the constitution used references of the day to draw their ideas and structures from. One of these used by Franklin, Madison, Jefferson, and Washington was Emerich de Vattel’s Laws of Nations. The term “natural born citizen” was not a inconsequential phrase pulled from thin air by the founders. It’s definition can be found in section 212 of Vattel’s book. It is specifically a person born of parents BOTH of whom are CITIZENS of this country at the time of birth of the child. quote: “natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”

Very clear, very specific, and very purposeful term used with exact precision by the founders to insure the individual has no secondary loyalties and specifically protect us from exactly the type of problem we have today.

No amount of redefinition of how one “feels” can alter the founders intent though there is much effort to try and redefine their meaning to fit the candidate de jour.. ala BHO. We should not fall into the trap of their making for it re-enforces a truly dangerous precedent the socialists have set before us.

Washington thought so much of Vattel’s work as a reference document to assist with the many problems he faced in his presidency that he did not return his copy to the Philadelphia library. It has only recently been returned from his archives and the late penalty was waived I understand.

Interestingly, Vattel also defined the term “subject to the laws of the land” found in the constitution granting citizenship to children born in this country but of parents who are not citizens. This was to mean that the sovereignty of the nation granted this right to parents who had AGREED to be subject to the laws of the land. Illegal aliens by definition clearly do not enter into that agreement and so also by definition citizenship was not intended to be granted to their children. Another example of how the socialists are redefining our country while we sleep.

First of all none of the early presidents had parents who were citizens of the United States because the United States didn’t exist. The founders were trying to prevent people who might have allegiances to foreign powers (obviously front and center on their minds was the british crown). They wanted the president to be someone born in the colonies (and later states).

But let me ask you this, what are we to make of the presidencies of the men who had one parent who was not a US citizen? And what about Andrew Jackson neither of whose parents were citizens? What country do you think Marco Rubio a natural born citizen of? What do we make of the fact that he was never naturalized? Is there a third type of American citizen? Natural born, naturalized and XXXX?

Andrew Jackson, as well as all the other presidents and vice-presidents who took the oath of office who were born in this country while it was still under British rule, were made citizens in 1776, if they were loyal to the Revelution. They all became eligible to take the oath of office, as per A2S1C5 nbC grandfather clause, on the adoption of the Constition in 1786

And what is the legal standing of Vattel’s Law of Nations? Is it a statute or a treaty, that it may be considered part of our law? Is it a court ruling, that it should be considered the valid interpretation of our law? No, it is merely a book that has not been officially grafted into our law. Therefore, using Vattel’s Law of Nations is in no way conclusive as a legal argument.

one could think of Vattel’s work as a dictionary or reference work common to the task of drafting the constitution. No it is not a law but it does give essence to the meaning of the actual words the Founders used. It somewhat avoids the tendency of some to impune the constitution with meanings that may be considered subjective. It is valuable to try to understand the true intent of the founders, is it not, rather than be constrained as some would like by “modern interpretation” of what we would have liked them to have said.

Sorry, Frank, but you are wrong. Here is the cite from the State Department web site quoting Section 301(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, which continued previous law on this subject. Also, the Canal Zone was considered U.S. territory at the time of John McCain’s birth.

“Birth Abroad to Two U.S. Citizen Parents in Wedlock

A child born abroad to two U.S. citizen parents acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under section 301(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) provided that one of the parents had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions prior to the child’s birth. The child is considered to be born in wedlock if the child is the genetic issue of the married couple.”

And, with respect to acquisition of citizenship at birth in the U.S., the Immigration and Naturalization Service says:

“Citizenship

If you meet certain requirements, you may become a U.S. citizen either at birth or after birth.

To become a citizen at birth, you must:

Have been born in the United States or certain territories or outlying possessions of the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States; OR
had a parent or parents who were citizens at the time of your birth (if you were born abroad) and meet other requirements.”

In both cases the U.S. Government considers you to have been a “natural born citizen” since citizenship was acquired automatically at birth.

The US Supreme Court passed judgment on McCain and declared him NATURAL born on the grounds that others have already stated here. So moonbats and Obambi lovers please refer us to the Supreme Court judgement regarding the Affirmative action, Anchor Baby, Teleprompter Kid , USURPER HUSSEINS birth status. He was after all born to an UNDESIRABLE Alien mooching father and a underage woman of loose morals. The US supreme court has RUN AWAY on extremely frivolous grounds from the countless suits that have been brought by US Citizens to try to get them to look at the USURPERS birth record.

” The Washington Post and the St. Petersburg Times have now accused Rubio of distorting his family’s history to make it more compelling.”

Does this mean that Rubio is writing a book channeling the “dreams” from the father he never knew? That kind of “more compelling” family history? Is Bill Ayers involved in making it “more compelling”? Does this mean that the Washington Post and St. Petersburg Times have awakened from their 3 1/2 year slumber on the subject of family histories?

Florida is a pivotal state to Obama’s re-election chances. He has a chance down there with seniors whom he can spook with accusations that the GOP will “destroy Medicare and Social Security.” But FL also has a large Hispanic community–which is liable to vote against Obama–and Marco Rubio will be pivotal in motivating that group to vote.

So if the Dems can destroy Rubio, they have a much better shot at taking Florida.

With a 9% unemployment rate, this is the only way Obama can win: Destroy everyone who could possibly speak out against him.

Do you not find it interesting that the Washington Post would investigate Senator Rubio’s parent’s SS#s but not investigate Obama’s recently E-Verify FLAGGED SS#. Now this is a real SCANDAL, not some wild goose chase. There are many things wrong with Obama’s SS#, for one he registered with the Selective Service with a FRAUDULENT SS#. Private Investigator Susan Daniels and Bill Collector Albert Hendershot have done all of the investigating all one has to do is google their names for all the CRIMINAL activity concerning the Obama SS#.

SOME PEOPLE HERE NEED TO READ THE CONSTITUTION.. YOU ARE AUTOMATICALLY A US BORN CITIZEN IF 1) YOU ARE BORN IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA OR ITS TERRITORIES (US VIRGIN ISLAND, PUERTO RICO OR INSIDE A US EMBASSY ABROAD) REGARDLESS IF YOUR PARENTS ARE LEGALLY OR ILLEGALLY, LAWFUL PERMANENT RESIDENT OR US CITIZENS. YOU ARE ALSO A US BORN CITIZEN WHEN YOU ARE BORN OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES AND ITS TERRITORIES FROM U.S. CITIZEN PARENTS.(AND ONLY ONE PARENT NEEDS TO BE A US CITIZEN NOT BOTH). THIS GROUP IS ELIGIBLE TO RUN FOR PRESIDENT.

EVERYBODY ELSE NEEDS TO BE NATURALIZED TO BE CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES BUT UNLIKE THE FIRST GROUP, THIS GROUP IS NOT ELIGIBLE TO RUN FOR PRESIDENT.

clear as a bell. your statements are no where to be found in our constitution and clearly were not the intent of the founders… your subjective opinion is interesting for it’s lack of basis and flat wrong. Moreover it does not protect us from someone who owes their primary allegiance to another country from ascending to the highest office in the land….
Citizen and Natural Born Citizen are not used interchangeably in the Constitution and carry different meanings for very good reason.
Read the constitution yourself with an eye to what the founders actually were trying to codify.
It is this type of thing that led Franklin to say “a republic madam, if you can keep it.” With such a shallow understanding by so many of our citizens of how and why we came into being as a nation, Franklin was never closer to being prescient.

Stop the with Rubio puppy love already. It’s embarrassing to listen to. He is a brilliant guy. But he’s been there for less than a year. You don’t become the CEO of Microsoft after being in the mail room for six months either. Some of the tasks you perform as President of the United States actually require the kind of competence that comes from having experience and seniority.

Government experience per se may or may not be helpful. But at the very least experience as EXECUTIVE of a complex organization is important. The largeness of heart to be leader of ALL the country (and not just some) is important. And finally, at the risk of being quaint, I would say LOVING the USA is important too. Ironically, immigrants and the children of immigrants often appreciate and love the freedoms we enjoy more than those who take them for granted…..

The problem is Rubio always refers to himself as the son of exiles. The song goes: Cuba was a paradise before those bearded commies took over. Cuba attracted immigrants. Cuba was the leading country in Latin America.

All true.

Then why did his father leave the island paradise in 1956?

Because he was an economic immigrant. Just like the Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, Dominicans, ect..

Not so politically appealing as losing your island paradise to a commie thug.

Forget all the ‘son of exiles’ BS Rubio is NOT a Natural Born Citizen as NEITHER of his parents were American CITIZENS when he was born. He is even LESS of a Natural Born Citizen than USURPER , Anchor Baby, Affirmative Action, Teleprompter kid HUSSEIN Obama who at least had ONE US Citizen parent albeit that being an underage mother of loose morals.
But NEITHER Obambi nor Rubio meets the US Constitutional requirements for being designated a NATURAL born Citizen , just being BORN in the USA is not enough.

If the writers of the Constitution had intended ANY child born of ANY nationality parents in the USA to be eligible to run for President then they would simply have said ‘Any child born in the USA” because calling them NATURAL born would be superfluous instead they said

Section 1 of Article Two of the United States Constitution sets forth the eligibility requirements for serving as president of the United States:

” No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

Simply being born in the USA does not make you a NATURAL born Citizen it makes you a NATIVE CITIZEN.

If anyone expects truth and fairness from the hyenas of the Left, you ain’t been payin’ attention. They will do or say ANYTHING to destroy a political threat.

You see, their “bible” is Alinskys Rules For Radicals. If you haven’t read it yet, you should. You will then recognize the tactics when you see them. And you will then accept that those are the rules that we have to play under and against, period. And by Alinskys rules, morality and ethics DO NOT figure in.

The Left are serious as a train wreck about winning every single battle that we are in with them. We’d better get just as serious, or we will lose this precious Republic, because they desire no less that that.

Obama has little wiggle room when it comes to his own citizenship credentials. Had Obama been a republican, you can bet the birth certificate would have been investigated relentlessly. Totally ignored. The MSM should be banned for the fraud that it is. For them to even bring up Rubio’s credentials is laughable.

No one is disputing that Rubio was born in Florida and is a native born U.S. citizen, but the terms “citizen,” “native born,” and “natural born” are not equivalent. Native born means nothing more than born on U.S. soil. Natural born means born on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizen parents. The wording of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S Constitution makes no sense if natural born means the same thing as native born, and the “grandfather clause” of the requirement would serve no purpose. (Those who point to the 14th Amendment should be reminded that is has nothing to do with the term natural born citizen and does not even mention it.)

Absent a Supreme Court ruling on the issue (which Obama has been fighting for more than two years), it must be resolved by historical documents:

On the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives in 1862, Congressman John Bingham—the “father of the 14th Amendment”—stated, “All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians.” In 1866 Bingham stated, “Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” Bingham’s definition was never disputed by other Congressmen. (Obama supporters—including attorneys filing briefs with the U.S. Supreme Court—have omitted the words “of parents” when quoting Bingham’s statement, in a shameful and intentional effort to mislead.)

In Minor v. Happersett (1875) Chief Justice of the Supreme Court C. J. Waite wrote, “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.”

If Rubio is chosen as the GOP’s vice presidential candidate lawsuits will fly. Count on it.

The reason Democrates fear Rubio is really pretty simple. The only real reason they could contest any bid by him for the presidency or VP spot is the fact tahe he was not born of two U.S. citizens. If they do that it opens a huge can of worms related to Obummer’s elegibility.

Hey Rich, yeah I agree, let’s give up the US Constitution and law of the land. They should only apply when convenient.

It is clear. Rubio is not a natural born citizen. To be a natural born citizen, at least one of your parents has to be a US citizen at the time of your birth. Rubio is a citizen, but not a NATURAL BORN citizen, so he cannot be President. Obama is a proven natural born citizen. He was born on US soil and his mother was a US citizen. Argument over. Yeah, give it up.

Totally WRONG Frank BOTH parents need to Citizens for you to be considered a NATURAL Born Citizen. Now if you can point out where in the Constitution or in a Supreme Court ruling where it says ‘hey you only need ONE US Citizen parent to be NATURAL born” I will concede. N.B. there HAVE been Supreme Court rulings that confirm the TWO parents definition.

They’re done with Michelle Bachmann who was successfully painted as just another stupid, Republican woman like Sarah Palin despite her law degrees and stint as an IRS attorney.

They ignore Gary Johnson, Buddy Roemer, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, Jon Huntsman, and Ron Paul because none of them stand a chance of snagging the GOP nomination. They buried Donald Trump under a still-suspect birth certificate and have labeled Herman Cain as nothing more than a token, a pizza store owner. They’re still in process of dismantling Rick Perry with charges of stupidity and blood lust and have made Mitt Romney an Obamacare accomplice.

However, Obama’s Democrats never feared any of them with the gut terror they experience with a 40 year old son of an immigrant, the newly-elected United States senator from the State of Florida, Marco Antonio Rubio.

Right now, Senator Rubio poses the major threat to President Barack Hussein Obama because he’s the anti-Obama, the embodiment of everything the president isn’t–pro-life, pro-balanced budget, pro-family and normal marriage, pro-charter schools, pro-drilling, pro-Second Amendment, pro-strong national defense, pro-real government and tax reform, and pro-border security.

If that were not sufficient to scare the pants off liberals, Rubio opposes Obamacare, amnesty for illegal aliens, phony economic stimuli, endless death row appeals, federal intrusions into public education, crippling cap and trade legislation, card check legislation, and punitive taxation.

Oh, and he loves his country, he’s an hispanic Catholic, and he doesn’t have Dumbo ears, a definite cosmetic plus in our looks-obsessed culture.

What Marco Rubio also has are credentials and credibility, features sorely lacking in the current White House resident.

Born in 1971 to Cuban immigrants–legal immigrants, not the kind Obama favors–graduate of the University of Florida, University of Miami School of Law (cum laude), 5-term member of the Florida House of Representatives, elected Speaker of that body in 2007, published author (without Bill Ayers’ ghostwriting), elected to the United States Senate in 2008, Rubio outshines Obama across the board but isn’t a candidate opposing him.

…The phrase natural born citizen, familiar to lawyers in 1776, refers to someone natively born of two citizen parents…By Constitutional law, only a natural-born citizen (i.e., one born on American soil to two American parents), OR citizens living here before or at the time the amendment was enacted (who may not have been natural-born citizens), qualify or qualified for office of President. This law was enacted to ensure that no president, after passage of the amendment, had divided loyalties between the U.S. and some other country….

Florida, you are correct. Here’s a simpler description for those who don’t “get it”. (I’m shocked at the numbers of people who have no knowledge of our Constitution – not just on this site, but everywhere in general! What a sad state we are in.)

Think about this and how crucial the eligibility requirement was to the Founding Fathers: they were part of a group that broke from England for religious and other freedoms. They “founded” the colonies (now called America), and chose George as their “president” (they didn’t want a “king”). But, they were very fearful that someone from England (one who had loyalties to the King of England) would finagle their way into the newly created position of “president”, and work to get the colonies under the rule of the King of England – essentially putting the whole group right back to where they started – under the King’s thumb.

This is why they put Article 2 Section 1 in the Constitution. They wanted to be sure they kept someone out of the new office of “president” who would betray them and all of their hard work in setting up a new life in the colonies.

As for the stupid comment that all of the Founding Fathers’ parents were not born in the colonies, that’s why they put in the Constitution the phrase “citizens living here before or at the time of the amendment”. Of course, the Founding Fathers didn’t have parents born here, because the colonies didn’t exist at the time of their births! So, in order to be able to choose one of them as “president”, e.g., George, they had to put that phrase in – the one about living here at the time of the amendment.

This is the SAME reason why we should be following the Constitution today – so that no one with foreign loyalties can finagle their way into the Oval Office, and work against the U.S. and for their foreign interests – which is exactly what has happened.

Was it Ben Franklin or Tom Jefferson that said they were giving us a Republic – if we could keep it? Well, looks like we were stupid and couldn’t keep it. Now we have to resolve to get it back.

There is no provision in the U.S. Constitution for either Mr. Obama (by his own words) OR Mr. Rubio (by his own words) being eligible for the presidency. Mr. Obama was born to a British citizen (putting aside where) and Mr. Rubio seems to think his parents being refugees makes them U.S. citizen under the Constitutional provision.

This is crystal clear and both parties and the media are either lying or profoundly incompetent. The Constitution is not flexible if one desires a certain outcome. I vote for lying, with useful idiots repeating what they hear.

It is likely that Senator McCain was not born on U.S. soil. Recall, the Senate passed a memo, more or less, that he was naturally born; Senator Obama voted for that – guess why. It may be that Gov. Jindal is not naturally born.

We need to defend the Constitution or we become another pathetic morass. It is those rules that made us special in the history of the world.

Definitive results of Republican preferences for their party’s 2012 nominee for president of the United States are far from in although thousands have expressed their opinions in non-binding state straw polls. There won’t be any real results until the numbers from the January 3rd Iowa caucuses and January 1oth New Hampshire primary are tabulated.

Still, based on early polls, the debates, educated guesses, and inconsequential straw ballots, pundits and non-pundits alike have a gut feeling on who will snag the gold GOP ring and, perhaps more importantly, who should be the nominee’s choice for a running mate.

As of now, it looks like former Massachusetts governor Willard Mitt Romney for the top spot. Assuming Mitt wants to win on November 6th,2012, he will pick Florida’s Senator Marco Antonio Rubio to run with him against President Barack Hussein Obama and Person-to-be-Named-Later, after Obama tests how the fickle political winds are blowing.

Designated late night Democrat hatchetmen Leno and Letterman would have tons of idiotic fun poking ridicule at “Willard” and “Marco” while ignoring the equivalent hilarity of “Barack” and his comical gaffes and ineptitude but they won’t get the chance unless Willard and Marco share the GOP ticket.

As we all know, things can change quickly and dramatically in the world of contemporary politics. Witness New York Senator Hillary Clinton’s unexpected fade in the 2008 Democrat presidential sweepstakes and, more recently, Rep. Michelle Bachmann’s and Gov. Rick Perry’s falls from grace among Republicans.

We also know the sheer terror Rubio has struck in the liberal minds and soul-less hearts of Obama’s MSM as seen in the current campaign by the Washington Post, et al. to deconstruct Rubio based on an innocent error concerning the date of his parents’ flight from Castro’s Cuba. The lib theory seems to be, when you have nothing, go with it, the same angle they unsuccessfully used on Herman Cain.

Good man that he is, Cain can’t be elected despite his recent popularity; he’s even more inexperienced and unqualified to be president than a certain community organizer was three years ago and lacks the advantage of mainstream media backing him and concealing his flaws.

Barring some catastrophic event, a Hillary insurrection, or Obama pulling an LBJ, he will head the Democrat ticket next year and, barring a miracle, Romney will be the Republican nominee. He will then have to decide whether to beat Obama or try once again to win in 2016. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5846.)